Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: irreversibility, the never-been-bought eligibility rule, the page-offering refusal behavior, and a user-confirmation requirement. These are operational constraints an agent cannot infer from the annotation block alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no filler: action and scope first, then refusal conditions, then the destructive/alternative guidance. Front-loaded in the order an agent needs to reason about safety before calling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with an output schema present (so return values need no explanation), the description covers eligibility, refusal behavior, parameter effect, irreversibility, and a safer alternative. Nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both productId and fromAllPages are already fully documented, including the refusal-without-fromAllPages behavior. The description paraphrases the same fromAllPages semantics rather than adding format, default, or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('permanently delete an order bump product') and immediately narrows scope with the eligibility constraint 'that has never been bought'. It also distinguishes itself from the similarly named delete_order_bump and update_product siblings by declaring what it will not touch ('Page products cannot be deleted here').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-not conditions ('a product still offered on a page is refused unless fromAllPages is true', 'Page products cannot be deleted here') plus a named preferred alternative ('prefer update_order_bump with enabled: false to stop offering it'). The agent knows both the precondition for success and the softer option to route to instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.